
pmid: 12811662
In this paper, we compare our experience with the techniques of needlescopic appendectomy (NA) (2-mm instruments) for the treatment of acute appendicitis with the more conventional approach of a laparoscopic appendectomy (LA).We did a retrospective review of patients who underwent NA for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis between August 1996 and January 2002. Variables including operative time, blood loss, postoperative time to discharge, intra- and postoperative complications were analyzed and compared to data from control patients who had undergone an LA for acute appendicitis.The NA group had a longer average operating time (54.5 +/- l3 vs. 42.5 +/- 12.6 min, p = 0.0001) and a longer postoperative hospital stay (2.1 +/- 1.4 vs. 1.3 +/- 1.1 days, p = 0.01). Blood loss was similar for the two groups.With the exception of superior cosmesis, NA appears to have little advantage over the better-established LA; moreover, it has some disadvantages. A clearer benefit of this procedure over LA, as well as improvements in instrumentation, needs to be shown before it can be widely accepted.
Adult, Male, Adolescent, Blood Loss, Surgical, Equipment Design, Length of Stay, Appendicitis, Laparoscopes, Treatment Outcome, Child, Preschool, Appendectomy, Feasibility Studies, Humans, Female, Laparoscopy, Clinical Competence, Safety, Child, Pliability, Retrospective Studies
Adult, Male, Adolescent, Blood Loss, Surgical, Equipment Design, Length of Stay, Appendicitis, Laparoscopes, Treatment Outcome, Child, Preschool, Appendectomy, Feasibility Studies, Humans, Female, Laparoscopy, Clinical Competence, Safety, Child, Pliability, Retrospective Studies
| citations This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 16 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
